The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center

(202) 707-6462 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • law@loc.gov • http://www.law.gov

Egypt: 

Legal Framework for

Arbitration

August 2014
This report is provided for reference purposes only. 

It does not constitute legal advice and does not represent the official 

opinion of the United States Government. The information provided 

reflects research undertaken as of the date of writing. 

It has not been updated.
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

Prepared by Mohamed Oweis Taha

Law Library of Congress Intern

under the guidance of

George Sadek

Senior Legal Analyst

SUMMARY Arbitration is becoming an increasingly important means of settling investment and 

commercial disputes in Egypt. The promulgation of Arbitration Law No. 27 of 1994 was a 

milestone in providing a comprehensive framework for the arbitration process in the 

country. The Law provides for the rules governing the formation and validity of 

arbitration agreements, arbitrability of legal disputes, composition of the arbitral tribunal, 

arbitral proceedings, and enforcement of an arbitral award. Judicial precedents of the 

Supreme Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation have played an important role in 

supplementing the provisions of the Arbitration Law. 

Although the Arbitration Law is the primary source for regulating the extrajudicial dispute 

resolution mechanism, the country’s unrest over the past three years spurred the 

introduction of other quicker and more flexible mechanisms for the settlement of 

investment disputes. Egypt has also acceded to several international conventions 

governing the arbitral process, the provisions of which have been incorporated into the 

country’s national legal system. 

I. Introduction

Although the judiciary has traditionally been regarded as the primary and sometimes exclusive 

forum for the settlement of legal disputes in Egypt, the country’s judicial system has become 

increasingly overloaded over the past few decades, rendering it incapable of keeping up with the 

swift pace of modern business transactions. Furthermore, the technicalities involved in many 

modern investment disputes have prevented state courts from issuing informed and timely 

decisions in these kinds of cases. These drawbacks for the conventional judicial system, coupled 

with the desire of investors to preserve confidentiality regarding their disputes and to have a say 

in the composition of settlement tribunals, spurred the Egyptian legislature to take a fundamental 

step towards encouraging arbitration as a parallel route for settling disputes, especially those 

disputes related to investment and commerce, with the promulgation of Law No. 27 of 1994 on 

Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters (Arbitration Law). The Law establishes an 

overarching framework authorizing and regulating arbitration as the main alternative dispute 

resolution mechanism in Egypt.1

While the Arbitration Law stands as the primary source of procedural rules governing arbitration 

in Egypt, a comprehensive overview of the legal framework that governs arbitration in Egypt 

also requires an examination of relevant judicial decisions by the Supreme Constitutional Court 

1 Law No. 27 of 1994 (Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters), al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 16, 21 April 

1994, English translation incorporating 1997 amendments available at http://www.crcica.org.eg/LawNo271994.pdf.

The Law Library of Congress 1

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

and the Court of Cassation as a secondary source of law regarding these rules. Additionally, 

some investor-state disputes in Egypt are governed by other decrees, issued in the wake of what 

has become widely known as the 2011 revolution, that establish an extraordinary means for 

settling investment disputes, with the aim of encouraging international investors to remain in the 

Egyptian market. Finally, the international character of arbitration as a dispute resolution 

mechanism dictates a brief overview of the relevant international arbitration agreements to which 

Egypt is a signatory and their application in the Egyptian legal system.

This report briefly explores this legal framework and introduces the reader to the basics that 

govern arbitration procedures in Egypt, which are more or less in conformity with the prevailing 

international standards.

II. Arbitration Law

The Arbitration Law lays down the procedural rules that govern the arbitration process in Egypt. 

Based primarily on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,2 the 

Arbitration Law is in harmony with prevailing international standards of arbitration. However, 

the Egyptian approach to arbitration includes the following specific rules that merit 

special emphasis.

A. Applicability 

Article 1 of the Arbitration Law states that the Law applies to any arbitration proceedings taking 

place in Egypt, or international commercial arbitrations taking place outside of Egypt if the 

parties involved have agreed to subject their proceedings to the Egyptian law as lex arbitri. 

In 1997, article 1 of the Arbitration Law was amended to condition the validity of any arbitration 

clause in a government contract upon the express approval of the concerned minister or head of 

governmental agency.3 That is, an arbitration clause in a government contract concluded 

between a government agency and a private person is effective only upon the approval of the 

concerned minister, or the head of the contracting agency where the agency is not subject to a 

specific minister. An exception to this ministerial approval requirement can be found in Law 

No. 67 of 2010 Regulating Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).4 Although PPP contracts usually 

qualify as government contracts, article 35 of the PPP Law explicitly authorizes arbitration 

clauses in PPP contracts subject to the approval of the Supreme Committee for PPP Affairs 

created by the PPP Law.

2 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (June 21, 1985), as 

amended (July 7, 2006), http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration.html. 

The Model Law was adopted with a view to unifying the procedures that govern commercial arbitration throughout

the world.

3 Law No. 9 of 1997 (Amending Some Provisions of the Arbitration Law), al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 20, 15 

May 1997.

4 Law No. 67 of 2010 (Private Sector Participation in the Infrastructure and Public Utilities Projects), al-Jarīdah alRasmīyah, vol. 19 (duplicate A), 18 May 2010.

The Law Library of Congress 2

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

B. Egyptian Law’s Skepticism Toward Arbitration

Perceiving arbitration as an unconventional means of settling disputes within the Egyptian legal 

system, Egypt’s legislature has been skeptical about surrendering the traditional jurisdiction of 

the state courts to newly-organized arbitral tribunals. This skepticism is directed at (1) the 

requirements applicable to arbitration agreements, (2) the types of legal disputes that may be 

encompassed under arbitration agreements, and (3) the rules that govern the mutual exclusivity 

of arbitration proceedings and state courts as parallel routes for settling legal disputes. 

As for the validity requirements, article 12 of the Arbitration Law dictates that an arbitration 

agreement must be in writing, meaning that is must be contained in a document signed by both 

parties or in mutual written correspondence between the parties, and both parties must have full 

legal capacity. While the Arbitration Law allows the arbitration clause to be entered into either 

before or after a dispute arises, article 10 does not permit the incorporation of an arbitration 

clause by reference to another agreement containing the arbitration clause, unless this reference 

is unequivocally clear in incorporating the arbitration clause. A mere reference to another 

agreement to incorporate its provisions is generally insufficient to incorporate an 

arbitration clause.

As for the arbitrability of legal disputes, article 11 of the Arbitration Law establishes the general 

rule that matters not subject to compromise are nonarbitrable. In the application of this rule, 

arbitration cannot be the forum for settling disputes arising, inter alia, out of constitutional 

issues, criminal law violations, domestic relations, or personal affairs.5 In 2008, the Minister of 

Justice issued Ministerial Decree No. 8310 of 2008,

6 which excludes from the scope of

arbitrability any legal disputes relating to any right concerning real estate, including any dispute 

relating to the possession, ownership, or severance of real estate, or any dispute that otherwise 

relates to real estate. This Ministerial Decree significantly narrowed the scope of arbitrability 

under Egyptian law and it became unclear whether its scope encompasses disputes that relate to 

real estate but have conventionally been arbitrable, such as those relating to hotel management.

Therefore, the decree was amended in October 2011 to refer solely to the provisions of the 

Arbitration Law in determining the arbitrability of legal disputes.7

The arbitrability of disputes arising out of government contracts has, however, become 

complicated since the issuance of the 2014 Constitution in Egypt. The current Constitution 

requires the submission of any administrative dispute to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State 

Council.8 The State Council’s exclusive jurisdiction may cast some doubts on the arbitrability of 

5 Law No. 131 of 1948 (Civil Code), art. 551, al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 108, 29 July 1948, provides that “No 

compromise shall be held in an issue relating to personal affairs or a matter of public policy.” Moreover, the 

settlement of domestic relations disputes is governed by a distinct religious scheme regulated by Domestic Relations 

Law No. 29 of 1925, as amended by Law No. 100 of 1985 (Amending the Domestic Relations Law), al-Jarīdah alRasmīyah, 4 July 1985. 

6 Ministerial Decree No. 8310 of 2008 (Regulating the Procedures for the Deposit of the Arbitral Award), alWaqāʼiʻ al-Miṣrīyah, vol. 230, 7 October 2008.

7 Ministerial Decree No. 9739 of 2011 (Amending the Ministerial Decree Regulating the Procedures for the Deposit 

of the Arbitral Award), al-Waqāʼiʻ al-Miṣrīyah, vol. 236, 15 October 2011.

8 CONSTITUTION OF THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT, 18 January 2014, art. 190.

The Law Library of Congress 3

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

disputes arising out of government contracts including, most notably, project contracts concluded 

between the granting authority and the project company pursuant to the PPP Law, as such 

disputes are administrative in nature. 

With regard to the Egyptian legislature’s skepticism toward arbitration in connection with the 

rules governing the mutual exclusivity between arbitration and the judiciary (that is, the rules 

favoring one form over the other where both arbitration and litigation come into play), article 13 

of the Arbitration Law directs a court of law to dismiss a lawsuit that concerns a dispute subject 

to an arbitration clause if the respondent requests the dismissal of the case before any other 

substantive pleading is submitted before the court

C. Arbitral Tribunals and Proceedings

An arbitral tribunal must be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

9 In the absence of a 

specific agreement to the contrary, a tribunal will be made up of three arbitrators, with the 

claimant and respondent appointing one arbitrator each, and the two appointed arbitrators then 

appointing the third and presiding arbitrator.10 Should a party fail to appoint its arbitrator, or the 

two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the appointment of the presiding arbitrator, the 

competent court must step in and appoint the arbitrator(s). The competent court is the court that 

would have had original jurisdiction over the dispute according to the applicable rules of civil 

procedure had the dispute not been subject to arbitration. However, in the case of international 

commercial arbitration, the competent court is presumed to be the Cairo Court of Appeal.11

The Arbitration Law does not require the arbitrator to hold a law degree or any academic 

qualifications. However, an arbitrator cannot be a minor, under guardianship, or deprived of his 

civil rights by reason of a judgment against him for a felony or misdemeanor due to dishonesty 

or a declaration of bankruptcy, unless his civil status has been restored. Unless otherwise agreed 

by the parties, an arbitrator can be of any nationality or gender.12

An arbitrator may be disqualified only in circumstances that give rise to serious doubts about his 

impartiality or independence.13 Until 2000, the Arbitration Law authorized the arbitral tribunal 

to rule on a disqualification request submitted by either party challenging the impartiality or 

independence of an arbitrator. However, in November 1999, the Supreme Constitutional Court 

declared unconstitutional an arbitral tribunal’s authority to rule on claims challenging the 

independence and impartiality of its members.14 Therefore, the Arbitration Law was amended in 

9 Law No. 27 of 1994 (Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Procedures) art. 15, al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 16, 21 

April 1994.

10 Id. art. 17.

11 Id. art. 9.

12 Id. art. 16.

13 Id. art. 18.

14 Al-Maḥkamah al-Dustūrīyah al-ʻUlyā [Supreme Constitutional Court], Case No. 84, session of 19 November 

1999, year 19. 

The Law Library of Congress 4

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

April 2000 to give the authority to the competent court to rule on these disqualification 

challenges.15

Absent an agreement to the contrary, arbitral proceedings commence on the date the respondent 

receives the request for arbitration from the claimant.16 Usually, the request for arbitration 

includes the requests of the claimants, a brief statement of the factual and legal bases of the 

claims, reference to the arbitration agreement according to which the arbitration is initiated, and 

nomination of the claimant’s arbitrator, as per the terms of the arbitration agreement. 

Subsequently, the claimant is required to serve on the respondent a statement of claim detailing 

the facts of the case, the determination of the points at issue in the dispute, and the relief or 

remedy sought. Within a time frame specified by the arbitral tribunal or agreed upon between

the parties, the respondent serves the claimant with a statement of defense detailing its factual 

and legal defenses to the claims and, if applicable, any counterclaims it may have against the 

claimant.17

Once the arbitral proceedings have commenced, the arbitral tribunal must render its final award 

within the period agreed upon by the two parties. In the absence of such an agreement, the 

award must be made within twelve months of the date of commencement of the arbitral 

proceedings. In all cases, the arbitral tribunal may decide to extend the period of time, provided 

that the period of extension does not exceed six months, unless the two parties agree on a longer 

period.18 Failure to observe this maximum time limit entitles each party to resort to the 

competent court to request a termination of the arbitral proceedings, which will bring the dispute 

under the jurisdiction of the competent court.19 

D. Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Once the arbitral tribunal renders its award, the award is final, and the dispute may not be 

reviewed by or relitigated before state courts.

20 However, the party against whom the award has 

been issued may request that the award be declared null and void.21 Article 53 of the Arbitration 

Law provides that an arbitral award may only be annulled if:

15 Law No. 8 of 2000 (Amending Some Provisions of the Arbitration Law), al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 13, 4 

April 2000.

16 Law No. 27 of 1994 art. 27.

17 Id. art. 30.

18 Id. art. 45.

19 Id. 

20 Id. art. 52.

21 Id.

The Law Library of Congress 5

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

• The award was based on an invalid arbitration agreement;

• Either party to the arbitration agreement was at the time of the conclusion of the arbitration 

agreement fully or partially incapacitated according to the law governing its legal capacity;

• Either party was denied the opportunity to properly present its case before the tribunal;

• The arbitral award failed to apply the law agreed upon by the parties (and care should be 

taken to ensure that a claim of failure to apply the law agreed upon by the parties does not 

encompass a claim of misapplication of that law);

• The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the appointment of the arbitrators was in conflict 

with the Arbitration Law or the parties’ agreement;

• The arbitral award dealt with matters not falling within the scope of the arbitration agreement 

or exceeded the limits of this agreement; or

• The arbitral award or award-related procedures contain a legal violation causing nullity.

It is worth noting that if the party claiming the annulment fails to object to the arbitral tribunal’s 

ruling on matters outside the scope of the arbitration clause on a date not later than that of the 

submission of its statement of defense, this failure will be deemed as implied acceptance of the 

tribunal’s jurisdiction to rule on those matters, and the party will not be allowed to subsequently 

request the setting aside of the award on that basis.22

Finally, a court adjudicating the action for annulment must ipso jure annul an arbitral award if it 

is in conflict with Egyptian public policy.23 Rules of public policy the violation of which voids 

an arbitral award must be overriding, mandatory rules that significantly affect the country’s 

public policy—a standard that is not easy to meet.

The party seeking to enforce an arbitral award must first resort to the competent court to request 

an exequatur (i.e., leave for enforcement). An exequatur will be granted once the court satisfies 

itself that the award is not null or void pursuant to article 53, does not contradict a judgment 

previously rendered by the Egyptian Courts on the subject matter in dispute, and was properly 

notified to the party against whom it was rendered.24 Although article 58 previously immunized

from appeal the court order granting an exequatur, but not the order denying it, this provision 

was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Constitutional Court in January 2001, and 

therefore orders granting and denying an exequatur are equally subject to appeal.25 

22 Id. art. 22.

23 Id. art. 53(2).

24 Id. art. 58.

25 Al-Maḥkamah al-Dustūrīyah al-ʻUlyā [Supreme Constitutional Court], Case No. 92, session of 19 January 2001, 

year 21.

The Law Library of Congress 6

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

III. Judicial Influence on Arbitration Rules 

Being a civil law system based primarily on a philosophy of legal codifications, judicial 

precedents do not generally serve as a primary source of law in Egypt. Although judicial 

precedents of the Court of Cassation enjoy a high degree of persuasive effect, they do not have a 

de jure binding effect on lower courts, which are generally bound only by codified laws duly 

issued by the legislature. Conversely, when the Supreme Constitutional Court sets aside a law as 

unconstitutional, that law will be considered invalid as of the date of the publication of the 

Court’s judgment, and therefore courts are bound by this judgment and may not continue 

applying the law any further.26

In light of these facts, judicial influence over the legal framework for arbitration in Egypt can be 

viewed from two perspectives: (1) the binding judgments of the Supreme Constitutional Court 

regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of the Arbitration Law, and (2) the persuasive 

judicial precedents of the Court of Cassation establishing judicial principles in connection with 

the application of the Arbitration Law.

As mentioned above (see Part II(C) and (D)), the Supreme Constitutional Court has set aside two 

provisions of the Arbitration Law for being unconstitutional. In November 1999, the Supreme 

Constitutional Court set aside the first provision of article 19 of the Arbitration Law, which 

allowed an arbitral tribunal to decide on requests for the disqualification of any of its members.27 

In January 2001, the Court also set aside the third provision of article 58 of the Arbitration Law 

insofar as it immunized the decision of the competent court granting an exequatur from appeal.28

The Court of Cassation has also established several judicial principles in connection with the 

application of the Arbitration Law, which are consistently followed by lower courts. For 

instance, in 1998, the Court of Cassation established the principle that the reasoning of the

arbitral award is not related to the public order and hence, the parties can agree beforehand to 

discharge the arbitral tribunal from issuing its award, and in any case, the lack of reasoning in an 

arbitral award may not be invoked for the first time to support a challenge before the Court of 

Cassation.29 The Court of Cassation has also ruled that an arbitration agreement must be deemed 

valid and effective in excluding the jurisdiction of national courts to decide on disputes even if 

the agreement does not provide the names of the arbitrators.30 In addition, the Court has held 

that, when deciding on a request for an exequatur, the competent court may not reconsider 

matters subject to the substantive discretion of the tribunal or the fairness of its award.31

26 Law No. 48 of 1979 (Establishing the Supreme Constitutional Court Law) art. 49, al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 

36, 6 September 1979.

27 Al-Maḥkamah al-Dustūrīyah al-ʻUlyā , Case No. 84, session of 19 November 1999, year 19.

28 Al-Maḥkamah al-Dustūrīyah al-ʻUlyā [Supreme Constitutional Court], Case No. 92.

29 Maḥkamat al-Naqḍ [Court of Cassation], Petition No. 5539, session of 11 July 1998, year 66.

30 Maḥkamat al-Naqḍ, Petition No. 2660, session of 27 March 1996, year 59. 

31 Id.

The Law Library of Congress 7

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

IV. Other National Frameworks for Arbitration

Although the Arbitration Law stands as the primary legislative source for extrajudicial forums or 

alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Egypt, Egypt has recently pursued various 

additional frameworks to accelerate the settlement of investment disputes between the state and 

investors. These frameworks were primarily motivated by the desire to provide confidence in 

the Egyptian economy, especially following the adverse economic consequences of the 

2011 revolution.

Hence, in October 2012, the Prime Minister issued Decree No. 1067 of 2012,

32 providing for the 

creation of a settlement committee charged with providing recommendations for settling 

investment disputes over contracts entered into between investors and any governmental entity. 

As this function does not affect the original jurisdiction of state courts or an arbitral tribunal to 

decide disputes,33 the settlement committee can hardly be classified as a parallel forum for the 

settlement of investment disputes. At the same time, the Prime Minister issued Decree No. 1115 

of 2012,34 which provides for the constitution of a settlement committee similar to the committee 

created by Decree No. 1067 of 2012, with two exceptions: First, unlike the Decree No. 1067

committee, the Decree No. 1115 committee is not limited in its jurisdiction to contractual 

disputes between investors and government agencies; rather, its jurisdiction encompasses any 

investor-state dispute, regardless of the applicable cause of action. Secondly, the 

recommendations issued by the Decree No. 1115 committee constitute general principles that 

must be followed by state agencies in similar instances.35

V. New York Convention and ICSID 

Considering the international nature of arbitration as a mechanism for settling legal disputes, the 

legal framework that governs international arbitration in Egypt is relevant from two main 

perspectives. First, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Egypt, as well 

as the foreign recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered in Egypt, is, for the most 

part, governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral 

Awards of 1958 (the New York Convention).36 Secondly, the Convention on the Settlement of 

Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965 (the ICSID 

Convention)37 provided for the establishment of the International Centre for Settlement of 

Investment Disputes (ICSID) as a member of the World Bank Group, which stands as the 

primary venue for the settlement of investment disputes between a member state and nationals of 

other member states.

32 Prime Ministerial Decree No. 1067 of 2012, al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 44, 1 November 2012.

33 Id. art. 2.

34 Prime Ministerial Decree No. 1115 of 2012, al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 44, 1 November 2012.

35 Id. art. 4.

36 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), June 10, 

1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. 6997, 330 U.N.T.S. 3, http://www.newyorkconvention.org/texts.

37 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID 

Convention), Mar. 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270, T.I.A.S. 6090, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, 4 I.L.M. 524 (1965), 

https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/ICSID/RulesMain.jsp.

The Law Library of Congress 8

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

Egypt ratified the New York Convention in February 1959.38 Pursuant to article 151 of the 

Egyptian Constitution, international conventions have the force of law upon ratification by the 

Parliament. Accordingly, the substantive provisions of the New York Convention are directly 

binding on Egyptian courts. In March 1999,

39 the Court of Cassation confirmed that the 

substantive provisions of the New York Convention are automatically incorporated into the 

Egyptian legal system, even if they contradict other legislative provisions in Egypt. Based on 

that premise, the Court of Cassation confirmed a lower court’s refusal to apply article 43,

paragraph 140 of the Arbitration Law when considering the recognition of a foreign arbitral 

award on the basis that such a provision is not stipulated in the New York Convention.41 

Likewise, Egypt ratified the ICSID Convention in November 1971.42 According to article 25 of 

the ICSID Convention, ICSID jurisdiction extends to any legal dispute between a contracting 

state (including Egypt and 158 other states) and a national of another contracting state that arises

directly out of an investment, if the parties to the dispute have consented in writing to submit to 

the ICSID. Egypt has followed the international trend of entering into Bilateral Investment 

Treaties (BITs) with other countries, whereby countries consent to the jurisdiction of the ICSID 

to rule on their investment disputes with nationals of other BIT-signatory states. 

According to statistics published in 2012, Egypt ranked third (with seventeen cases) among the 

countries most frequently appearing as respondents before the ICSID, following Argentina and 

Venezuela.

43 For example, in July 2009, California-based H&H Enterprise Investment (H&H) 

brought ICSID proceedings against Egypt pursuant to the US-Egypt BIT. In May 2014, the 

ICSID rejected most of H&H’s claims on a jurisdictional basis—that is, the ICSID viewed the 

“fork-in-the-road” provisions provided for in the US-Egypt BIT as preventing an investor who 

has pursued specific dispute-resolution proceedings from relitigating the dispute a second time in 

different dispute-resolution proceedings.44 In a second ICSID ruling in Egypt’s favor issued in 

April 2014, the ICSID tribunal declined jurisdiction to hear the case “due to [the] lack of foreign 

control of [the] ICSID claimant [National Gas].”45

38 Presidential Decree No. 171 of 1959 (Acceding to the New York Convention), al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 27, 

14 February 1959.

39 Maḥkamat al-Naqḍ, Petition No. 10350, session of 1 March 1999, year 65. 

40 “The arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the arbitrators. If the arbitral tribunal consists 

of more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of the arbitrators shall suffice, provided that the award 

states the reasons for which the minority did not sign.” Law No. 27 of 1994 (Arbitration Law) art. 43(1), as 

translated by CRCICA.

41 Petition No. 10350, supra note 39. 

42 Law No. 90 of 1971 (Acceding to the ICSID Convention), al-Jarīdah al-Rasmīyah, vol. 45, 11 November 1971.

43 Inna Uchkunova, ICSID: Curious Facts, KLUWER ARBITRATION BLOG (Oct. 25, 2012), http://kluwerarbitration 

blog.com/blog/2012/10/25/icsid-curious-facts/comment-page-1.

44 Craig Tevendale & Jennifer Hartzler, Egypt Prevails on “Fork-in-the Road” Provision, ARBITRATION NOTES

(Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, June 6, 2014), http://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2014/06/06/egypt-prevails-on-fork-inthe-road-provision.

45 Case Synopsis, National Gas v. Egypt Award, April 17, 2014 (Vol. 7, No. 9), INVESTMENT ARBITRATION 

REPORTER, http://peterson.live.subhub.com/ categories/PDF2014 (decision downloadable by subscription).

The Law Library of Congress 9

 
Egypt: Legal Framework for Arbitration

VI. Conclusion

The provisions of Egypt’s Arbitration Law provide a relatively simple and straightforward 

framework for arbitration in Egypt, which harmonizes to a large extent with the prevailing 

international standards contained in the UNCITRAL Model Rules of International Commercial 

Arbitration. Seen as a more effective, expeditious, and flexible mechanism for settling 

investment disputes, arbitration has increasingly been used as a means for settling investment 

disputes in Egypt. 

Events that ensued following the 2011 revolution have profoundly affected the arbitration 

process in Egypt from both a legal and factual perspective. From a legal perspective, one can 

argue that the drafting of the new Egyptian Constitution has prevented arbitration in connection 

with government contracts because it entrusts the State Council with exclusive jurisdiction over 

these disputes. Moreover, post-2011 events have motivated the Egyptian government to 

constitute more flexible and expeditious forums for settling investor-state disputes. From a 

factual perspective, the economic difficulties that Egypt has encountered since 2011 have 

rendered Egypt more susceptible to international claims before the ICSID.

The Law Library of Congress 10